I expect pro abortion protests will quickly die out.

[Stoic]

But liberals claims that human fetuses are just a mass of cells and not people, so then turtle fetuses are not turtles, right?

Right, but killing too many of them could kill off the species. (The same is true for humans, but there's no chance that we'll kill off that many human fetuses.)

But by making the eggs protected they are recognizing that they ARE indeed turtles that are endangered, not just a mass of cells.

And I would argue that even an unwanted human being is worth more than a turtle. Who knows who that human being could grow up to be or who would want him/her after being born?

I agree that even an unwanted human being is worth more than a turtle.

Now we just have to agree on the definition of "human being".

[Stoic]

And that aborted fetus could grow up to be the very person that makes those discoveries, Stoic. Or invent something that saves the planet.

Or he could be another Hitler.

[Stoic]

If you destroy all of the acorns you won't have any oak trees. So if your goal is to gow a lot of valuable oak trees you will value the acorns very much.

But not as much as you will value an oak tree, since an average 100 year old oak tree produces 2200 acorns per year.

[Alien]

I said it is the "most rational" position. Are you saying it is irrational? Not rational to identify with and defend your own species? If that was widespread enough, we'd be extinct.

I can't remember what point I was trying to make. I'll have to leave it.

As far as empathy, do you understand or share the thoughts of an animal?

I certainly try to. Empathy is more about feelings than thoughts, but whatever. My dog and I have a clear communication on many things. I know when she wants to go outside to the "bathroom". I know when she is happy or unhappy. I know when she wants food. It's a mixture of noises and body language on her part, and her recognizing some words. I'm on a soapbox here, but if you want to communicate with a non-human then you have to put yourself in its place as far as you can.

[Ronson]

I can't remember what point I was trying to make. I'll have to leave it.



I certainly try to. Empathy is more about feelings than thoughts, but whatever. My dog and I have a clear communication on many things. I know when she wants to go outside to the "bathroom". I know when she is happy or unhappy. I know when she wants food. It's a mixture of noises and body language on her part, and her recognizing some words. I'm on a soapbox here, but if you want to communicate with a non-human then you have to put yourself in its place as far as you can.

Understood.

[Alien]

If you destroy all of the acorns you won't have any oak trees. So if your goal is to gow a lot of valuable oak trees you will value the acorns very much.

But the number of oak trees required is a lot less than the number of acorns produced. So, by your logic, we only need to preserve the fetuses that we want to grow into oak trees people. Cool.

The squirrels can have the rest.

That's the acorns not the fetuses.

[Alien]

And I would argue that even an unwanted human being is worth more than a turtle.

Not to a turtle.

I have to say, you need to compare like with like. Turtle eggs to human "eggs", hatched turtles to born humans and adult turtles to adult humans. In both cases there is huge wastage associated with the process. How many eggs does a pair of turtles produce in their lifetime. Probably thousands. How many mature turtles are required to maintain the population? Two. With humans it's about 50 eggs and two humans. We could argue that the value ratio of a turtle egg to a mature turtle is, say, 1/1000, and the ratio for humans is maybe 1/25. Now the logic so far may be a little contrived, but bear with me. It follows that the value of a mature woman is greater than that of an egg by 25 times, because she has beaten the odds of survival by that amount. To put it another way, to maintain the species we should protect the life of the female over the fetus by a factor of 25.

[rogue06]

Right, but killing too many of them could kill off the species. (The same is true for humans, but there's no chance that we'll kill off that many human fetuses.)

Keep in mind that there are among the environmental extremists on the left a stated desire to drastically cull the human population if not eliminate it entirely.

[Roy]

The one doing the killing is relevant because the legal penalties for killing some-one else's unborn child are very different from the legal penalties for aborting one's own. If she kills some-one else's unborn child she could go to jail for a lot longer than if she destroys some eagle eggs. So an unborn child has a lot more protection under the law than the eagle eggs do.

You cannot possibly not know this.

It makes no difference, who or what is doing the killing is irrelevant, what is being killed is the the issue. The unborn child in the womb is not protected from legal abortion. The eagle eggs are protected across the board.

Eagle eggs are not legally protected from being destroyed or abandoned by the parent eagles.* Or by other eagles, hawks, raccoons or other predators.

Again, you cannot possibly not know this.

*Some birds do this in response to low food resources. See eg here.

[seer]

Eagle eggs are not legally protected from being destroyed or abandoned by the parent eagles.* Or by other eagles, hawks, raccoons or other predators.

So what? You can not apply law to the actions of animals.

[rogue06]

So what? You can not apply law to the actions of animals.

Was this something like what you're saying here?

281619899_10223879467629606_6198337869508458300_n.jpg

[Stoic]

Keep in mind that there are among the environmental extremists on the left a stated desire to drastically cull the human population if not eliminate it entirely.

There are crazies at both extremes.

[seer]

There are crazies at both extremes.

Speak for yourself!

[rogue06]

There are crazies at both extremes.

In this case, as I had previously noted, some of them are from "mainstream" groups

[Stoic]

In this case, as I had previously noted, some of them are from "mainstream" groups

It's not unreasonable to wish that the human population was a lot smaller and under control. But that's not the same as wanting to cull the human population or eliminate it entirely.